It seems that the tragic Josh Hancock accident has all the teams tightening policies on alcohol. It seems to me that this is an overreaction.
This accident had nothing to do with alcohol in the clubhouse or on charter flights. Opinions?

The Immigrant

05-09-2007, 12:21 PM

Don Cooper does not like this trend.

Luke

05-09-2007, 12:33 PM

It's purely a liability issue.

SoxyStu

05-09-2007, 12:49 PM

Overreaction? Not yet, but I'd guess it's coming...Just 5 total teams have implemented some sort of ban. Of those 5, only 1 has a complete ban (home and away clubhouses including flights - Yanks).

I, too, agree that these clubs are attempting to relinquish themselves of any question of liability.

skottyj242

05-09-2007, 12:52 PM

I think it is a way overreaction. The guy wasn't killed like right after the game, he was at a restaurant and two bars. I guess I can see the home clubhouse ban making sense just because guys have to drive home, but if you want to have a beer after a game then hop on the bus and go back to the hotel...more power to you.

skottyj242

05-09-2007, 12:53 PM

It's purely a liability issue.

On whose part?

itsnotrequired

05-09-2007, 02:22 PM

On whose part?

The team.

PatK

05-09-2007, 03:41 PM

I'm all for it.

Why should they get all that delicious beer for free, while I have to pay over $5 to drink warm beer from a plastic cup?

Luke

05-09-2007, 03:42 PM

The team.

Right, they just want to shield themselves from legal action. I don't think they expect it to prevent any DUIs, they just don't want to be liable.

sox1970

05-09-2007, 03:47 PM

So if Danks wins tonight, does he get the beer shower? Or is that banned now too?

Uncle_Patrick

05-09-2007, 03:58 PM

So if Danks wins tonight, does he get the beer shower? Or is that banned now too?
They'll use O'Douls.

rdwj

05-09-2007, 04:08 PM

I think it's an overreaction. There is nothing wrong with having a couple of beers after a game or on the plane ride home. If certain guys are taking it to the next level, they should be dealt with individually. No reason to punish EVERYONE because a few people aren't responsible.

HotelWhiteSox

05-09-2007, 04:08 PM

I agree with CD. It was a sad event, but at the same time, it was a rare event where there were some glaring warning signs , including hangovers affecting performance and almost getting killed a few days earlier...

TDog

05-09-2007, 04:32 PM

I think it's an overreaction to complain that alcohol bans are an overreaction.

People don't have a constitutional right to consume alcohol (although you wouldn't know this in Wisconsin). States have a constitutional right to regulate or even ban alcohol. (In fact, there are no laws requiring teams to sell fans beer at games. At one pre-prohibition time, the National League prohibited beer sales.) Teams have a vested interest in the health of their players. Not supplying players with beer would be in the best interest of the team from a health standpoint.

Really, though, the reason for teams to put a ban on alcohol in the clubhouse isn't just a matter of liability. It's a proactive public relation question. No team wants a player or coach to be arrested on a drunken driving charge on their way home from a game, with the media finding piecing together that it was the team that facilitated the elevated blood-alcohol level.

DannyCaterFan

05-09-2007, 04:48 PM

The Cubs as well as other teams are banning beer and alcohol from their clubhouses. A typical knee jerk overreaction. How hypocritical is it of the Cubs to ban beer from their players when they promote and encourage beer drinking at Wrigley Field by the nearly 40,000 fans that attend each game. Don't many of them leave the field intoxicated?

TDog

05-09-2007, 05:16 PM

The Cubs as well as other teams are banning beer and alcohol from their clubhouses. A typical knee jerk overreaction. How hypocritical is it of the Cubs to ban beer from their players when they promote and encourage beer drinking at Wrigley Field by the nearly 40,000 fans that attend each game. Don't many of them leave the field intoxicated?

Of course, there is some hypocrisy. I don't think there is any question Chicago would be a safer place if Wrigley Field banned beer sales. Personally, I would love to see that happen -- just because it would be so much fun to see that happen.

At the same time, the Cubs don't have a financial stake in the continued health of their fans the same way they have in the health of their players. Bad acts by Cubs fans don't reflect badly on the team either. There also is a difference in overcharging people for beer and providing beer for them.

Paulwny

05-09-2007, 05:19 PM

The clubhouse ban is both a PR move and a liability issue.
The corporation I worked for discontinued free alcohol at all company events, they went to a cash bar set-up.
At another division, when alcohol was free, an employee on the way home from a X-Mas party was involved in an accident and charged with DWI. The laywer for the other party sued sued both the employee and the corporation. I believe the wording against the company was , "allowing unsupervised free alcohol consumption".
Lawyers will look for the holder of the biggest $$$ amount.

Chicken Dinner

05-09-2007, 05:23 PM

The Cubs as well as other teams are banning beer and alcohol from their clubhouses. A typical knee jerk overreaction. How hypocritical is it of the Cubs to ban beer from their players when they promote and encourage beer drinking at Wrigley Field by the nearly 40,000 fans that attend each game. Don't many of them leave the field intoxicated?

I agree 100%. So it's OK for the club to promote beer sales to it's fans but not it's players? Maybe after all this is done and over, that alcohol sales will cease after the 2nd inning to make sure no one can be intoxicated when they leave. Doubtful. I don't see this as being a liability issue either, it's a PR issue.

TDog

05-09-2007, 05:35 PM

I agree 100%. So it's OK for the club to promote beer sales to it's fans but not it's players? Maybe after all this is done and over, that alcohol sales will cease after the 2nd inning to make sure no one can be intoxicated when they leave. Doubtful. I don't see this as being a liability issue either, it's a PR issue.

When I was working in suburban Milwaukee, my boss told me that he took his son to a Brewers game against the White Sox when the Brewers were in the American League. Typically teams cease alcohol sales after the seventh, but on this day the large crowd was so unruly that the home team (in bigtime beer-land) stopped selling beer after the second inning.

It was a big crowd and a hot day, I was told. I'm sure the decision involved some sacrifice.

AJ Hellraiser

05-09-2007, 05:37 PM

Great article regarding this issue in the Sun-Times today:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch/376596,CST-SPT-greg09.article

I completely agree with De Luca on this one... these are grown men who have the right to drink alcohol... they must take the proper responsibility like everyone else and not DRINK AND DRIVE.... these guys have plenty of money to ride a taxi cab or hire a driving service if they are too intoxicated and no teammates will drive them.... this one lies solely on Hancock, sure it's a shame he died but it's his own fault and not the fault of MLB or the Cardinals...

jdm2662

05-09-2007, 05:41 PM

The Sox should ban alcohol and not re-instate it until they win at least ten in a row.

The same stipulations were put in place for Texas years back. They ended up winning 15 in a row...

DannyCaterFan

05-09-2007, 05:44 PM

Of course, there is some hypocrisy. I don't think there is any question Chicago would be a safer place if Wrigley Field banned beer sales. Personally, I would love to see that happen -- just because it would be so much fun to see that happen.

At the same time, the Cubs don't have a financial stake in the continued health of their fans the same way they have in the health of their players. Bad acts by Cubs fans don't reflect badly on the team either. There also is a difference in overcharging people for beer and providing beer for them.

Whether the Cubs charge for the beer or not, they are still "providing" beer for their fans. In theory, couldn't a fan's family sue the Cubs if a family member is killed in an accident after leaving Wrigley Field drunk? In the same manner as a tavern can be sued if they overserve a patron.

DumpJerry

05-09-2007, 05:45 PM

I do not think it is an overreaction.

Skottyj is correct in that if a guy wants a beer after blowing a three run lead, he's gonna get one. If not at the ballpark, then at a bar or restaurant.

It is not an overraction because if they guy who has one after the game gets his beer or whatever from some place other than the clubhouse and then gets into an accident with injuries, the person injured cannot sue the team for supplying the alcohol.

Also, they cut off sales after the 7th inning. Why should these guys get to have beers after that when the mere mortals cannot?

DumpJerry

05-09-2007, 05:46 PM

The Sox should ban alcohol and not re-instate it until they are in First with a 15 game lead.

The same stipulations were put in place for Texas years back. They ended up winning 15 in a row...
Improved it for you.

jdm2662

05-09-2007, 05:47 PM

Improved it for you.

I like that better. :D:

Paulwny

05-09-2007, 05:51 PM

Whether the Cubs charge for the beer or not, they are still "providing" beer for their fans. In theory, couldn't a fan's family sue the Cubs if a family member is killed in an accident after leaving Wrigley Field drunk? In the same manner as a tavern can be sued if they overserve a patron.

Each state has different laws regarding taverns and dui's.

from findlaw.com

Q : I was hit by a car driven by a drunk driver who was going home after a night out. What can I do, in addition to suing the drunk driver? A : If you live in a state that has a Dram Shop Act, you may be able to recover from the tavern owner where the drunk driver was served the liquor. Such acts usually come into play when intoxicated people served by the bar later injure somebody while driving. Some of those laws also make tavern owners liable when drunk customers injure others on or off the premises. But some courts say a tavern owner will not be liable unless the sale of the liquor itself was illegal.

Frontman

05-09-2007, 07:24 PM

As a semi-non drinker/social event drinker; I find it a bit of an over-reaction/PR move. It's all about avoiding being sued. I for one can't fault players/managers who want to have a beer and relax after a game.

rocky biddle

05-09-2007, 08:06 PM

Great article regarding this issue in the Sun-Times today

I really can't believe you referred to a Greg "the Apprentice Windsock" Crotch column as great. Was that supposed to be in teal, or did you link to the wrong column?

CLR01

05-09-2007, 08:22 PM

I completely agree with De Luca on this one... these are grown men who have the right to drink alcohol...

Not in the clubhouse they don't. At their own house sure.

IndianWhiteSox

05-09-2007, 10:51 PM

The messed part is, is that they'll put up this front for a few months but then everyone will have drinks in the clubhouse. If anything, there should be a limit of 1 or 2 drinks in the clubhouse and have a no DUI policy or curfew on road trips which can cut down the alcohol consumption.

Nellie_Fox

05-10-2007, 12:43 AM

If anything, there should be a minimum of 1 or 2 drinks in the clubhouse..."Hey, where are you going, mister? You haven't had your minimum number of drinks. You aren't going anywhere."

chisoxmike

05-10-2007, 02:19 AM

Its just total overreaction. People need to blame something on someone or something that some else did instead of taking the blame for themselves.

Oh yeah, and little Jay today wrote a nice column describing the "childness" of the White Sox clubhouse today in relation to him agreeing with taking beer out of clubhouses. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I need a :gulp:

soxfan13

05-10-2007, 10:42 AM

Each state has different laws regarding taverns and dui's.

from findlaw.com

Q : I was hit by a car driven by a drunk driver who was going home after a night out. What can I do, in addition to suing the drunk driver? A : If you live in a state that has a Dram Shop Act, you may be able to recover from the tavern owner where the drunk driver was served the liquor. Such acts usually come into play when intoxicated people served by the bar later injure somebody while driving. Some of those laws also make tavern owners liable when drunk customers injure others on or off the premises. But some courts say a tavern owner will not be liable unless the sale of the liquor itself was illegal.

True but there is a cap on how much you can sue for. I think the cap in Illinois is less then 100, 000.

IndianWhiteSox

05-10-2007, 11:24 AM

"Hey, where are you going, mister? You haven't had your minimum number of drinks. You aren't going anywhere."

That's not what I meant professor, what I was saying is that it should be the limit and that way no one leaves drunk.

itsnotrequired

05-10-2007, 11:31 AM

That's not what I meant professor, what I was saying is that it should be the limit and that way no one leaves drunk.

An easier approach is to ban it entirely. These are Sox "employees" on Sox property. No brainer to ban it.

IlliniSox4Life

05-10-2007, 11:38 AM

Would their be a difference in liability if teams didn't ban it, but would just not supply it to players? In other words, if they let players bring their own beer in from outside and consume it in the clubhouse, would they not be liable?

And for that matter, if they are so concerned with liability, what's with serving beer to fans in the first place? I guarantee a higher percentage of fans leave the ball park drunk and drive home than ballplayers.

itsnotrequired

05-10-2007, 11:42 AM

Would their be a difference in liability if teams didn't ban it, but would just not supply it to players? In other words, if they let players bring their own beer in from outside and consume it in the clubhouse, would they not be liable?

And for that matter, if they are so concerned with liability, what's with serving beer to fans in the first place? I guarantee a higher percentage of fans leave the ball park drunk and drive home than ballplayers.

I'm betting the teams don't even want to deal with any potential liability. Ban it outright and the problem of team liability goes away. These organizations have literally tens of millions invested in certain players and for something to happen to them as a result of actions at the stadium is probably something the team just doesn't want to deal with.

As for banning beer in the stadium, that is certainly a team's prerogative but I don't see it happening. Fans are paying to come to their place unlike players who are paid to be there.

MrRoboto83

05-10-2007, 11:46 AM

Alcohol bans are going to start happening in general over the next 10-15 years. Tobacco has pretty much been outlawed, Alcohol is next on the list trust me, it is the beginning of the end. My prediction that we will not be able to consume alcohol anywhere that minors are present soon. Despite the revenue, there will be no alcohol allowed at sporting events.

Paulwny

05-10-2007, 12:04 PM

True but there is a cap on how much you can sue for. I think the cap in Illinois is less then 100, 000.

THE $100,000 may be the limit for bars however for corporations who pass out free alcohol, I found this,

Employers have a risk when alcohol is served at a party. We don't want to be a spoil sport and tell you that you should never serve alcohol at a company function. Parties without alcohol can be a little bland. However, the risk that you take by serving alcohol is significant. If you were to serve alcohol at a company function and one of your employees, after consuming alcohol at your party, were to cause a vehicle accident resulting in bodily injury, you would likely be a defendant in a lawsuit. Your risk would be quite significant if your employee was found to be legally intoxicated and your company was found to be operating in an irresponsible manner.

soxfan13

05-10-2007, 12:08 PM

THE $100,000 may be the limit for bars however for corporations who pass out free alcohol, I found this,

Employers have a risk when alcohol is served at a party. We don't want to be a spoil sport and tell you that you should never serve alcohol at a company function. Parties without alcohol can be a little bland. However, the risk that you take by serving alcohol is significant. If you were to serve alcohol at a company function and one of your employees, after consuming alcohol at your party, were to cause a vehicle accident resulting in bodily injury, you would likely be a defendant in a lawsuit. Your risk would be quite significant if your employee was found to be legally intoxicated and your company was found to be operating in an irresponsible manner.

Yes but what is the number?

Chicken Dinner

05-10-2007, 12:09 PM

Good to see the Brewers are leaving the responsibility up to the players (adults).

"Wild professional athletes are chased through the streets of the city to escape police officers trying to make a DUI arrest."

Paulwny

05-10-2007, 12:14 PM

Yes but what is the number?

It could be unlimited, my corporation ( read post #17 in this thread ) settled out of court. A company is supplying free unlimited alcohol with little to no supervision, this is different than a bar which is selling alcohol.

soxfan13

05-10-2007, 12:16 PM

It could be unlimited, my corporation ( read post #17 in this thread ) settled out of court. A company is supplying free unlimited alcohol with little to no supervision, this is different than a bar which is selling alcohol.

Thank you!! I guess the reason I posted the original was that I thought the number was really low.

TDog

05-10-2007, 12:28 PM

THE $100,000 may be the limit for bars however for corporations who pass out free alcohol, I found this,

Employers have a risk when alcohol is served at a party. We don't want to be a spoil sport and tell you that you should never serve alcohol at a company function. Parties without alcohol can be a little bland. However, the risk that you take by serving alcohol is significant. If you were to serve alcohol at a company function and one of your employees, after consuming alcohol at your party, were to cause a vehicle accident resulting in bodily injury, you would likely be a defendant in a lawsuit. Your risk would be quite significant if your employee was found to be legally intoxicated and your company was found to be operating in an irresponsible manner.

Not to mention the beating a high-profile family-friendly company would take in the media in the event of a lawsuit. Honestly, the people posting here are completely unaffected by the ban and would bear no financial consequences of possible litigation. It must be easy to stand up for the principle of a right to free beer when you don't have to deal with the responsibilities of providing it.

Besides, if litigation is really a problem, we could argue righteously about the need for tort reform.

itsnotrequired

05-10-2007, 12:36 PM

Good to see the Brewers are leaving the responsibility up to the players (adults).

It isn't an issue of responsibility but one of liability. The team doesn't want any. Drinking in the clubhouse isn't some type of constitutionally protected right or something like that. The teams enacting bans are prohibiting consumption on their property. How is this a problem?

Chicken Dinner

05-10-2007, 12:46 PM

It isn't an issue of responsibility but one of liability. The team doesn't want any. Drinking in the clubhouse isn't some type of constitutionally protected right or something like that. The teams enacting bans are prohibiting consumption on their property. How is this a problem?

If it was such a huge liability why did it take until 2007 to address this along with the death of a drunk player who no one has said even consumed 1 drink in the clubhouse?

itsnotrequired

05-10-2007, 01:05 PM

If it was such a huge liability why did it take until 2007 to address this along with the death of a drunk player who no one has said even consumed 1 drink in the clubhouse?

Beats me. Whether the bannings are overreacting or not is irrelevant in terms of clubs wanting to limit liability. No doubt this is triggered by the event in question.

Brian26

05-10-2007, 01:14 PM

The teams enacting bans are prohibiting consumption on their property. How is this a problem?

Considering that the ballpark is essentially a giant outdoor bar, tailgaiting is not only allowed but promoted, Miller products make up over 50% of the gross revenue of concessions, there are beer signs all over the park....it seems to be a bit hypocritical to try to enact a ban prohibiting consumption on "Sox property."

Someone will counter with the argument that the players are technically employees of the Sox. I'll counter with this question: If the Sox are liable for consumption of beer in the clubhouse, are they liable for the fans who are over-served at the games? It doesn't seem as cut and dry as you're making it.

Paulwny

05-10-2007, 01:22 PM

Considering that the ballpark is essentially a giant outdoor bar, tailgaiting is not only allowed but promoted, Miller products make up over 50% of the gross revenue of concessions, there are beer signs all over the park....it seems to be a bit hypocritical to try to enact a ban prohibiting consumption on "Sox property."

Someone will counter with the argument that the players are technically employees of the Sox. I'll counter with this question: If the Sox are liable for consumption of beer in the clubhouse, are they liable for the fans who are over-served at the games? It doesn't seem as cut and dry as you're making it.

Different liability issues, the alcohol for fans isn't free, a bar or concession company vs a corporation supplying free and possibly unlimited alcohol ,different liability laws are applied.

ComiskeyBrewer

05-10-2007, 01:23 PM

If the Sox are liable for consumption of beer in the clubhouse, are they liable for the fans who are over-served at the games? It doesn't seem as cut and dry as you're making it.

Yes actually, they are. Atleast according to a Jury a few years ago, teams are liable for overserving fans.

PatK

05-10-2007, 01:41 PM

Comparing selling beer to fans with teams providing it to players is comparing apples to oranges.

And besides, how many jobs that you know of offer free unlimited beer to their employees after a days work?

soxfan13

05-10-2007, 01:47 PM

Comparing selling beer to fans with teams providing it to players is comparing apples to oranges.

And besides, how many jobs that you know of offer free unlimited beer to their employees after a days work?

Before everyone got married and had kids we had free unlimited beer in our fridge. If that ran out we had a monthly tab our company paid for,at Skyride. I think its a little more common then you think.

ComiskeyBrewer

05-10-2007, 03:05 PM

Comparing selling beer to fans with teams providing it to players is comparing apples to oranges.

And besides, how many jobs that you know of offer free unlimited beer to their employees after a days work?

For the record, i wasn't comparing the two, just answering a question. :cool:

PatK

05-10-2007, 03:41 PM

Before everyone got married and had kids we had free unlimited beer in our fridge. If that ran out we had a monthly tab our company paid for,at Skyride. I think its a little more common then you think.

Wow.

If we did that at my company, half the place would never leave

downstairs

05-10-2007, 04:22 PM

Comparing selling beer to fans with teams providing it to players is comparing apples to oranges.

And besides, how many jobs that you know of offer free unlimited beer to their employees after a days work?

My company does. Of course, I work at home, so.... :cool:

Oh, and...
:gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

ComiskeyBrewer

05-11-2007, 03:14 AM

My company does. Of course, I work at home, so.... :cool:

Oh, and...
:gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

You hiring? :D:

chitownhawkfan

05-11-2007, 03:25 AM

Whatever happened to personal responsibility??? If the team drinking in the clubhouse improves morale and leads to one more win I say, screw the teetotalers and give that man another drink.